Swing State Project

[Cross-posted at my blog Senate 2008 Guru: Following the Races.]

A Democrat hasn’t represented Kansas in the U.S. Senate since the 1930’s.  There is no way a Democrat could win a U.S. Senate seat in Kansas in 2008!

Wrong.

Kansas could very well be the sleeper competitive Senate race of 2008.  Why?  Several reasons.

1) Unintimidating Approval Numbers: Look at Pat Roberts’ approval rating over the last year, according to Survey USA.

6/19/07: 51-37
5/24/07: 52-36
4/25/07: 48-39
3/20/07: 50-36
2/22/07: 49-37
1/24/07: 52-35
12/20/06: 52-36
11/22/06: 51-36
10/15/06: 47-42
9/20/06: 53-37
8/15/06: 48-39

Since August ’06, Roberts’ average approve-disapprove has been 50.3-37.3.  These are not the intimidating approval numbers of an unbeatable incumbent.  If a Senator from a traditional Presidential swing state had approval numbers like these, that Senator would be a top-tier target.  But, just because this is Kansas and not Ohio doesn’t mean as much as you’d think (as you’ll see in point number three).

Much more below the fold.

2) Roberts Oversaw Intelligence Scandals: From 2003 until the Democrats’ reclaiming of the Senate Majority, Pat Roberts served as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.  During his tenure as Chairman, Roberts’ oversight was so lax that the committee was dubbed “the Senate Cover-up Committee.”  Roberts rolled over for the unpopular Bush administration on numerous intelligence issues including warrantless domestic spying and wiretapping, Iraq oversight, leaking classified information, and allowing torture.  I doubt that law-abiding Kansas families would be too thrilled with the fact that Pat Roberts supports Bush’s ability to warrantlessly spy on them.

3) Kansas Growing More Democratic-Friendly: A few indicators suggest that Kansas is growing more and more comfortable voting Democratic.  First, compare the approval ratings of a couple of chief executives.  George W. Bush’s approve-disapprove in Kansas stands at a shocking 38-60.  Bush’s approval in Kansas is so low that Pat Roberts himself has begun to qualify his support of Bush’s Iraq War.  Meanwhile, Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who was re-elected last year by a 58-40 margin, has an approve-disapprove that stands at 65-31.  The Democratic chief executive is considerably more popular than the Republican chief executive.  Beyond that, ten years ago, all four of Kansas’ U.S. House seats were held by Republicans.  Now, the breakdown is two Republicans, two Democrats, highlighted by Nancy Boyda’s stunning victory in 2006.  Between Bush’s unpopularity, Sebelius’ popularity, and the overall Congressional shift, Kansans are clearly more comfortable voting (D).

4) Lack of Support from National Republicans: With 22 Republican-held seats (including recent Wyoming appointee John Barrasso) to defend, compared with 12 Democratic seats, the NRSC will have its hands full.  Couple those numbers with the fact that the DSCC is trouncing the NRSC in fundraising, raising money at a pace double that of the NRSC.  With the NRSC worried about defending first-tier battlegrounds like Maine, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado, they probably won’t have much money left over to send in to Kansas to help Pat Roberts out.

5) The KS-GOP Mess: The Kansas Republican Party has seen better days.  The KS-GOP is apparently near bankruptcy.  The KS-GOP is getting sued over a labor dispute.  And, following a spate of high profile Republicans in Kansas changing their voter affiliation to Democrat (including current statewide officeholders and a former KS-GOP Chair!), the KS-GOP has cooked up a rather creepy Unity Pledge.  The KS-GOP is in bad shape.

The above five reasons outline why Pat Roberts can be deemed quite vulnerable in 2008.  So, who is there to challenge him?

Last month, I outlined a dozen prominent Kansas Democrats.  Of course, there are Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Congresspeople Dennis Moore and Nancy Boyda, though Governor Sebelius has expressed no interest and both Congresspeople are expected to run for re-election to the House.

There are also four Republicans-turned-Democrat on the list: first-term Lt. Gov. (and former KS-GOP Chair) Mark Parkinson, first-term state Attorney General Paul Morrison, former Kansas House Majority Leader Joe Hoagland, and former Lt. Gov. John Moore.  As freshmen in their current roles, Parkinson and Morrison are expected to stand pat and accrue more experience before an attempt at another office.  Hoagland and Moore both remain interesting options; in fact, Hoagland considered a challenge to Sam Brownback in 2004.

Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and former Kansas Congressperson Dan Glickman seems too comfortable at his current job as President of the Motion Picture Association of America to attempt a run; and, while I have heard rumors of interest from political activist, military veteran and Congressional spouse Steve Boyda, he may have his hands too full assisting Nancy in her re-election bid to undertake a statewide run of his own.

The three remaining names are: state Secretary of Revenue Joan Wagnon, whose resume is quite impressive; 2004 Senate candidate Joan Ruff, whose ’04 campaign seemed to gain a lot of traction only to have her inexplicably withdraw her bid shortly before the primary; and, 1996 Senate candidate Jill Docking, a businesswoman who is also the daughter-in-law of former Kansas Governor Robert Docking.

Should Governor Sebelius, of course the dream candidate, definitively insist against a Senate bid, I’d offer that the two most interesting names that the DSCC could pursue are state Secretary of Revenue Joan Wagnon and former Kansas House Majority Leader and Republican-turned-Democrat Joe Hoagland.  Regardless of who is pursued, it is inarguable that Pat Roberts is vulnerable to a strong challenger.  I hope that the KS-Dems work hard to propel a challenger forward and that the DSCC does not overlook Kansas as a potential Senate battleground.

Twenty-First Century Democrats is proud to endorse Darcy Burner for Congress in Washington’s 8^th Congressional District.

“Leadership is seeing the big picture, knowing how to get there, and then painting that picture so vividly that the rest of the world eagerly comes along.” – Darcy Burner

Darcy Burner is a seasoned leader with bold ideas that capture the imagination of all Americans. Her work at Microsoft has given her the experience to create new paths to achieve goals worth fighting for such as health care for everyone and dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Darcy is intelligent, analytical, and has the energy, motivation and ambition to get the job done. Her commitment to the values of equality, liberty, opportunity and responsibility will make her a leader in the Democratic Party after she wins the 2008 Congressional election in Washington’s 8^th Congressional District.

Darcy is running for Congress to fulfill her commitment to human rights. First, human rights include the right to end an unjust war in Iraq, let the Iraqi people decide their own destiny, and restore faith in America as a leader who solves problems with a force of argument and not the force of weapons.

Human rights include the right to be taken care of with dignity and respect when a person is ill. She will fight to make sure everyone has access to universal healthcare.

Human rights include the right to a clean and sustainable environment. She has a commitment to dramatically reduce greenhouse gases to protect the planet’s environment and the health of Washingtonians and all people around the world.

Human rights also mean equality for all. Darcy has shown courage in her conviction to treating everyone equally no matter their race, gender, age or who they fall in love with.

Darcy Burner reflects the core Democratic value of hope. She won’t appeal to fear and bigotry to gain votes. She will inspire all Americans to come together and build a community where power and wealth is evenly distributed among all people.

We endorsed Darcy during her tough and very close race in 2006 against Dave Reichert. We, along with many Americans, were outraged when the Republican attack machine launched a negative campaign of fear against Darcy. But we will not give up on Darcy.

Like many real leaders, Darcy has the courage to set aside the sting of defeat and stand up for what she believes by getting back in the ring. She is in a stronger position to win in 2008. We feel that throwing our support behind her campaign early in the race will send a strong signal to the progressive Democratic community that Darcy Burner is a candidate that everyone should get behind by volunteering and supporting her campaign.

Join us as we help Darcy Burner become the next great Washington Democrat to bring bold, progressive ideas to the halls of Congress. With your generous financial support, we can send Darcy Burner to Congress and turn Washington’s 8^th Congressional district blue.

The time has come to have a serious discussion about Al Gore and about whether or not you want him to run for President because let’s be honest with each other.

Al Gore doesn’t have to run. He can go forward and fight his fights from the outside in. He can run a different campaign and keep winning it. If you were Al Gore, you probably wouldn’t run either. Do I think he would lose a lot of momentum if and when it’s clear he isn’t running for President? Hell yes. But he would still have plenty to do.

But I’m here to say: we need Al Gore.

Not from a “wouldn’t it be great and make the perfect t.v. movie moment and we fade from hanging chads to confetti at The White House” but from a real deep need: this country needs Al Gore.

Al Gore thinks he is a lousy politician, he’s right. He is. We need some lousy politicians who say what they mean and mean what they say. We need some lousy politicians who can’t stop themselves from rolling their eyes when a member of the press asks a moronic question. We need someone who points out how stupid the captions are on t.v. shows. We need Al Gore.

Al Gore lost a race in 2000 that shouldn’t have even been close. I love this about him as a potential candidate. We need someone who has run the race and lost because only someone who has lost can win in 2008. Why?

Someone who has lost will laugh when the consultants tell him what they want to charge. (20 million for six months work in the McCain campaign for example, that’s what these people think is reasonable and those assholes will get jobs with someone else just you watch.)

Someone who has lost will stick to what they think. Someone who lost and left in DC will look at DC and say hmm, I lived there? What was I thinking?

Besides I don’t need another a candidate to learn from losing. Gore lost and learned. Kerry lost and someday will learn. I don’t need Barack or Hillary or Edwards to learn from losing – I need someone who has lost to win by learning from a previous lost.

Furthermore, for a Democrat to win, and I truly believe this, we need to run an entirely different kind of race. When I see John Edwards’s first tv commercial or read Mark Penn’s strategy memo or see Barack’s response to ‘the troops not being funded,’ I don’t see anyone who has much of a clue.

How about a Presidential Campaign that is new media driven where the candidate actually gets new media? How about a Presidential Campaign that has a contribution limit of $500 per person? How about a Presidential Campaign that’s about YouTube and bloggers and the soul of new media? Not just the bells and whistles of a souped up traditional campaign.

Hell, how about a campaign that isn’t run by, for and about Washington and instead have one that is by, for and about the people?

Paging Al Gore.

We also need a Democratic candidate who publicly and loudly called the Iraq War a mistake right from the beginning. We need a candidate who didn’t vote without reading the intelligence and is now trying to correct a mistake.

We need someone who was right from the start. Because let me tell you – if you think Iraq is a mess now, wait till the end of this year – and seriously, two of our three candidates voted for the war and the other, to be fair, wasn’t on the stage at the time. Of course, then there’s the guy who called it a disaster before it actually was one.

That would be Al Gore.

We need a Democratic candidate who has seen the worse the other side has to offer; who has seen how they fight and how they win. We need someone who understands the evil within the opposition. We need someone who is willing to bring a gun to the gunfight. Say Al Gore.

We need a Democratic candidate who understands how the issue of climate change is impacting our world from a security standpoint, from a poverty and education point, we need someone who can use signing statements for someone other than torture. Al Gore springs to mind.

And unfortunately so do two other things. The first is that Al Gore is not a candidate and has no plans to be a candidate as of today, July 17, 2007. I promise you that this is true. There are no plans, no secret committees, no planning sessions, nada, nothing.

However, the door is not completely shut because Al Gore likes to say something like “I don’t know what I would have to see to change my mind but I would know it if I saw it.”

Guess  what? The only thing Al Gore needs to see is a mirror.

Because the only person who can stop Al Gore is Al Gore. And clearly, he needs a kick the ass on this one. Let me see if I can sum up my message.

Dear Al:

I get you have a great life, I saw you with Cameron Diaz at LiveEarth, I get it. I get you don’t don’t want to deal with the press, I saw Diane Sawyer soil herself on national tv in her interview with her. I get that answering the same stupid question is annoying.

I get that the other side plays dirty and they love to turn their machine against you and make fun of your energy bills. I get that the campaign trail is a shitty place and the food is bad and you’re a long way away from your family. I get that you are making money and having fun and that it’s great to work with smart people like Steve Jobs. I get that we ignored you in the 1970s and 1980s when you were right about global warming.

I get that you love your time with your family and your wife and your grandchildren.

I get that you’re worried the support isn’t real. That you will lose again. That it will be like December 2000 all over again. I get the fear. I get that you really really really don’t want to run

I get it. Really, I do. Guess what? I don’t care.

Stand up. Let’s get to work.

James

The recent poll out of New Hampshire, the first one to ask the question correctly, clearly shows the support for a Al Gore run is real.

If Al Gore enters the race in New Hampshire, he wins.

If Al Gore enters the race by October 15, he can run a four month campaign and win.

So Al Gore needs to look in the mirror. He needs to see that there is one candidate who can not only win The White House, but win the country back. Al Gore knows his history. In the early days of our country, our forefathers risked everything for this country. Our early leaders ran not for themselves but for their country.  Al Gore knows this better than anyone, and Al Gore alone of all the potential candidates out there, needs to respect the history of your country and answer the call.

This then is the core issue. Because the only person who can stand up and get this thing moving is Al Gore. He has to stand up and say:

I am thinking about running,

He doesn’t have to be sure. He doesn’t have to commit. But nothing is going to happen until instead of saying ‘no,’ he says ‘maybe.’

And he has to do this by September 1. Then he sets up an Exploratory Committee but guess what? His committee is really to explore whether to run or not. He can raise money and then by October 15th, he has to declare. But here’s the thing. Money raised to the Exploratory Committee can be donated if not spent. So he could raise the money and say look, if I don’t run, here are the ten charities I will give the money to after I pay the bills.

I will only accept donations up to $250 right now.

And if I run, I will accept another $250 from you. No more than $500 per person.

How much would he raise? Well, this has been a debate among the smarter people I know online and whole I certainly don’t want to name names here are the numbers.

One prominent online strategist thinks $20 million in a month. Another thinks $30 million. And a lot of people think he could raise $40 million.

Here’s how you get to $40 million.

300,000 give an average of  $80 for $24,000,000

64,000 higher end donors give $250 each.

But a funny thing happens in you’re Al Gore – what do you need the money for? Television ads? Not sure you really need them. Mainstream media and the online world will carry your messages in a four month campaign.

High priced consultants? I think he learned that lesson too. He can use the money to travel, set up rallies that are free to attend, he can hold concerts like LiveEarth and make them general admission for $25.

He can barnstorm the country and speak to who he wants to, when he wants to. He doesn’t have to make fundraising calls or do lots of events. He doesn’t have to do tons of one on one interviews and meet the press, because the press will come meet him.

He was $20,000,000 to spend on travel, staff, and signs.

Can he raise $20,000,000? You tell me.

150,000 give an average of $80 for $12,000,000.

32,000 higher end donors give $250 each.

That’s will happen.

So there you have it.

Set up a committee and raise $20 million and worst case, $15 – $18 million gets donated to charity. Set up a committee and you only get $2,000,000 – well, it’s still a good month raising money for charity. And people like me shut up.

Set up a committee and see if everyone who is blathering like me will put their money where their mouth is. I will. I promise.

Set up a committee and see what the polls really do when you’re really in the race.

Set up a committee and explore.

There can be a million draft Gore posts and a million people who write about him running.

There can be a thousand emails sent and a million comments online.

I have very smart top political friends who have sketched out fundraising plans.

One of the smartest political people I know has a plan for Iowa, ready for the taking.

I know people in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, Florida, California, Washington State, they all call me and say “do you think there’s a chance?”

It’s the number one question I get in the traditional press.

It’s the number one question I get online.

And the answer to the question is to set up a committee.

Guess who the only person who can answer that question?

Al Gore.

And he now has just under 45 days to answer it.

Just four Republican members of Congress had the courage late last week to vote for a bill requiring that U.S. troops stationed in Iraq be deployed by next April.  Mike McCaul was not among those showing such courage.  Instead, he voted to keep taxpayers’ sons and daughters mired in the escalating violence while the Baghdad government continues to enjoy its summer-long vacation.

For Central Texans who have been watching Mr. McCaul put his rubber stamp on the White House’s failed public policies for the past four years, his vote last week was no surprise.

Nor will his next move be – introducing a measure calling for the adoption of the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations from last year, now that those recommendations are no longer viable, if they ever were.

This isn’t leadership.  It’s followership.  And followership isn’t good enough.

When I went to Iraq in 2005, it wasn’t because I was a fan of President Bush or his war.  I’m not.  But I had spent the previous years working for small-d democracy from Kosovo to Afghanistan, and I thought I might contribute in some small way to help the Iraqi people consolidate their peace so that our own troops could come back home where they belong.

I worked on the elections of October and December that year – historic successes in the midst of the violence, failure, and disappointment that have marked the U.S. presence there.  In a rare collective act of hope and bravery, Sunni and Shiite alike went to the polls to choose a legitimate government in a free, fair, and open process, and the overwhelming public sentiment was to carry on with more elections in an effort to rebuild their nation.

Like millions around the world, I now realize that the Bush Administration and its congressional allies considered the elections little more than a photo op.  No wonder they didn’t take advantage of the momentum that had started.  The newly elected Iraqi government saw no reason to have more elections that could undermine its new power.  The Iraqi public, hungry to make its voice heard again, never got that chance.  The White House failed to push for more democratic change in Iraq.  And without pressure from either government, the elections ministry where I worked collapsed into a cycle of score-settling personal vendettas and political purges.

Press releases instead of progress.  Spin over substance.  Flashbulbs, declarations of mission accomplished, and endless requests for just a little more time to turn things around.  It’s not enough.

Along with thousands of brave soldiers and hundreds of other civilians from around the world, I tried to play a role in bringing positive change to Baghdad.  But it wasn’t enough. The elections I worked on were allowed to fade away, like sowing seeds on dust.  The best efforts of our troops, our team of international experts, and our good-hearted Iraqi friends didn’t end the war.  We simply installed a government bent on entrenching itself every bit as violently as Saddam Hussein had.

But I’m one of the lucky ones.  I’ve come back home.  And now I’m asking you to send me to Congress so that, together, we can make sure our brave troops come home soon, too.

http://www.dangrantf…

Well 5 more districts now have candidates:
AL-01,
CA-42,
IN-03,
PA-18,
WV-02,
Once again go and take a look at the 
2008 Race Tracker Wiki. & DCCritters.

Below the fold for all the news.
(cross posted at MyDD and Daily Kos)

310 races filled! This of course includes 233 districts held by Democratic Congresscritters.

But we also have 77 GOP held districts with confirmed Democratic opponents.

So here is where we are at (GOP Districts):
Districts with confirmed candidates – 77
Districts with unconfirmed candidates – 3
Districts with rumoured candidates – 33
Districts without any candidates – 89

1) The GOP held districts with confirmed Democratic challengers are as follows:
AL-01,
AL-04,
AK-AL,
AZ-01,
AZ-02,
AZ-03,
AR-03,
CA-04,
CA-24,
CA-26,
CA-41,
CA-42,
CA-44,
CA-48,
CA-50,
CO-04,
CT-04,
FL-01,
FL-08,
FL-09,
FL-13,
FL-15,
FL-21,
FL-24,
ID-01,
IL-10,
IL-14,
IN-03,
IN-06,
IA-04,
IA-05,
LA-01,
MD-01,
MD-06,
MI-07,
MN-06,
MO-06,
MO-09,
MT-AL,
NE-02,
NV-03,
NJ-05,
NJ-07,
NJ-11,
NM-01,
NM-02,
NY-23,
NY-25,
NY-26,
NY-29,
NC-03,
NC-08,
NC-09,
OH-01,
OH-02,
OH-07,
OH-14,
OH-15,
OH-16,
PA-03,
PA-15,
PA-16,
PA-18,
TX-04,
TX-08,
TX-10,
TX-11,
TX-13,
TX-14,
VA-05,
VA-06,
VA-10,
WA-04,
WA-08,
WV-02,
WI-01,
WY-AL,

2) The following 3 GOP held districts have candidates that are expected to run but are yet to confirm:
SC-04,
TX-26,
VA-11,

3) The following 33 GOP held districts have rumoured candidates – please note that some of these “rumours” are extremely tenuous!
AZ-06,
CA-03,
CA-45,
DE-AL,
FL-06,
FL-10,
FL-12,
GA-01,
GA-03,
GA-06,
GA-07,
GA-09,
GA-11,
IN-04,
KY-05,
MI-09,
MN-02,
NE-03,
NV-02,
NJ-02,
NJ-03,
NJ-04,
NY-03,
NY-13,
NC-05,
OK-04,
PA-06,
PA-09,
TN-07,
TX-02,
UT-03,
VA-01,
WI-06,

4) And last but not least the following 89 districts have not a single rumoured candidate:
AL-02,
AL-03,
AL-06,
CA-02,
CA-19,
CA-21,
CA-22,
CA-25,
CA-40,
CA-46,
CA-49,
CA-52,
CO-05,
CO-06,
FL-04,
FL-05,
FL-07,
FL-14,
FL-18,
FL-25,
GA-10,
ID-02,
IL-06,
IL-11,
IL-13,
IL-15,
IL-16,
IL-18,
IL-19,
IN-05,
KS-01,
KS-04,
KY-01,
KY-02,
KY-04,
LA-04,
LA-05,
LA-06,
LA-07,
MI-02,
MI-03,
MI-04,
MI-06,
MI-08,
MI-10,
MI-11,
MI-12,
MN-03,
MS-01,
MS-03,
MO-02,
MO-07,
MO-08,
NE-01,
NC-06,
NC-10,
OH-03,
OH-04,
OH-05,
OH-08,
OH-12,
OK-01,
OK-03,
OK-05,
OR-02,
PA-05,
PA-19,
SC-01,
SC-02,
SC-03,
TN-01,
TN-02,
TN-03,
TX-01,
TX-03,
TX-05,
TX-06,
TX-07,
TX-12,
TX-19,
TX-21,
TX-24,
TX-31,
TX-32,
UT-01,
VA-02,
VA-04,
VA-07,
WA-05,
WI-05,

Praise to those states where we already have a full slate of house candidates – Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming.

It is also interesting to note that we have only one race left to fill in Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Thats 17 states with a full slate, and 5 states with one race to fill! That is almost half the states full or nearly full 17 months before election day, an impressive feat indeed!

Please note that in some races others at the racetracker site have confirmed candidates that I haven’t. This is because to satisfy me a confirmed candidate has either filed with the FEC, The Sec of State or has an active campaign website, or even if they come and blog and say yep I am running. Others are not so rigorous.

It is also great to see candidates in CA-42, TX-11 and VA-06, 3 of 10 districts we did not contest in 2006!

We are well on track to beat the 425 races we contested in 2006.

*** Tips, rumours and what not in the comments please.***

Yesterday was the deadline for House and Senate campaigns to file their fundraising reports for the second quarter of 2007.  Like we did for the first quarter, we’ve amassed a list of noteworthy fundraising numbers for House incumbents and challengers.  While this list is seriously mega, it is not meant to be comprehensive.  If we’ve missed anything, please post the numbers in the comments.  And remember: these numbers are adjusted for rounding.

Scroll buttons ready?  Away we go!

A few quick notes:

• Republican challengers who outraised Democratic incumbents: Jim Ryun (KS-02) and Andrew Saul (NY-19).
  
• Democratic challengers who outraised Republican incumbents: Charlie Brown (CA-04), Russ Warner (CA-26), Jim Himes (CT-04), Michael Montagano (IN-03), Frank Kratovil (MD-01), Andrew Duck (MD-06), David Nacht (MI-07), Kay Barnes (MO-06), Eric Massa (NY-29), Vic Wulsin & Steve Black (OH-02), John Boccieri (OH-16), Darcy Burner (WA-08).  Go Team Blue!
  
• Republican incumbents who were out-raised by other Republicans: Wayne Gilchrest (MD-01), Jean Schmidt (OH-02) and Ralph Regula (OH-16).
  
• Democratic incumbents who were out-raised by other Democrats: Steve Cohen (TN-09).
  
• Anatomy of a Dud: Sean Sullivan, just a few months ago, was a highly touted Republican recruiting coup in Connecticut against freshman Rep. Joe Courtney.  As the former commander of the Groton naval base, he could conceivably have some appeal in the district, where Groton holds a special mystique.  However, after three full months of campaigning, Sullivan has only $31K raised and $14K on hand to show for it.  According to The Politico, Republicans in Washington are plenty furious at his “disastrous” fundraising pace, and he’s now persona non grata in DC.  Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Courtney is on pace to amass $1 million before the year is over.  I love it.
  
• NY-20 and PA-08: Before today, the talk was all about how impressive Mark Kirk’s (R-IL) fundraising pace is.  Leave it to Kirsten Gillibrand and Pat Murphy to blow his take out of the water.  Gillibrand raised a massive $707K, and Murphy collected over $750K.  Gillibrand’s tally sure makes the not-insignificant fundraising reports of challengers Sandy Treadwell and Richard Wager, well, a little less significant.  And you’ve gotta believe that Murphy’s staggering figure is going to give any would-be challenger a serious pause.
  
• AZ-01 and CA-04: Rick Renzi’s and John Doolittle’s incredible shrinking cash-on-hand figures sure look like ominous signs for the embattled incumbents.
  
• WV-02: Can someone please tell John Unger to file his July quarterly report?  At the time of writing this, I cannot find Unger’s report in the FEC database.  Inquiring minds want to know how much support he’s attracting.
  
• Take a look at the CoH figures for most of these potentially vulnerable Republican incumbents.  The thing that you should note is that very few of them are bigger than $1 million.  I suspect that that is the lingering effect of 2006: many of these incumbents, realizing that it was a wave year, dumped all or most of their warchests on ensuring their re-election.  Yet another blow to the traditional Republican money advantage.
  
• UPDATE: Unger’s report is in.  Less than $27K raised, but this isn’t a Sean Sullivan-type report since Unger only officially filed for the race around the end of the quarter.  He’ll have to make a good showing in the third quarter, though.

A couple of weeks ago, Jon Bruning released his Q2 fundraising numbers, coming in at over $720,000 for the quarter, a very good number for a primary challenger.

Now, incumbent Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who two weeks ago said that his campaign would be “well beyond” the amount raised by Bruning, has clocked in at $387,000, a large portion of that coming from a May fundraiser featuring Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The conventional wisdom crystallizing on the ground here is that Hagel is blocking for Johanns – though it’s unclear if Johanns will get in the race, and the longer he waits, the stronger Bruning looks.

As we move closer to the fall, expect some movement one way or the other.

Let me first say, I have never met Dan Grant nor do I live in TX-10, but I am a young Texas Democrat who regularly commutes from TX-22 (Friendswood/Houston) to TX-26 (Denton/Fort Worth) for college.

I was just checking the FEC records because, well, I was bored and I noticed the numbers for the Texans who have filed their reports thus far. According to said reports, Democratic challenger for TX-10, Dan Grant, performed admirably.

Q2 2007
Amount Raised: $72,765.08
COH: $134,482.52
Debts: $0
http://query.nictusa…

For a district hovering somewhere in our third tier, $72.7 thousand is not too shabby. However the real amazing part is when this is compared to the Republican incumbent, Mike McCaul.

Q2 2007
Amount Raised: $131,384.58
COH: $133,387.41
Debts: $171,652.23
http://query.nictusa…

Ignoring the outstanding debt McCaul’s campaign has ramped up, Grant still has more cash. If McCaul were to pay off all of his debt today he’d be $38,624.82 in the hole. This is an amazing advantage Grant has raised over McCaul and I hope the DCCC takes notice.

It is important to note that Grant does have a democratic challenge ahead of him. Larry Joe Doehrty (sp?) who is known for his tv court room drama, Texas Justice, is in the democratic primary as well. While I am personally rooting for Grant due to his efforts in reaching out to blogs, he has posted here on swingstate several times before, it is important that we support whomever wins the democratic nomination next year especially since McCaul won with a pathetic 55% last year.

If you would like to learn more about Dan Grant please visit his website:
http://www.dangrantf…

I’m sure donations would also be welcome to keep his momentum going:
http://www.actblue.c…

P.S. While I like commenting (have been for almost 2 years), this is my first diary. How’d I do?

What’s on your mind this weekend?

UPDATE (David): The Nashville City Paper’s political blog says that GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander is being talked up as a possible replacement for the departing chancellor of Vanderbilt University. If there’s any truth to this, that would make him at least the fourth member of Congress this year to be considered for a move into academia. SSP readers will recall that Reps. Meehan (MA-05), Hulshof (MO-09) and LaHood (IL-18) were the others, though only Meehan pulled the trigger.

So the question of course is, should Lamar! step down, who would Dem Gov. Phil Bredesen appoint to fill his place?